My PC is P4/3GHz/3GBRAM/Pulsar2+Luna2.
I noticed that when I routed all my VSTi tracks to the Scope STM mixer, my CPU level in Nuendo is getting hot too….?? It is only routing,…..not yet mentioning putting all the effects, etc.
I thought Scope won’t burden the CPU at all.
Any comment?
Hc.
Is it really 0% CPU power?
The communication between every new DSP vst charged in tha FX/Synth array requires a little amount of CPU power to manage the continous ASIO audio stream between Cubase and Scope.
In the cubase "insert" slots try to use, if possible, the multiFX XTC device (to load inside the scope effects) instead the single dev FX, it saves resources and delay.
Wich Scope OS are U using? 3.1c, 4 or 4.5?
In the cubase "insert" slots try to use, if possible, the multiFX XTC device (to load inside the scope effects) instead the single dev FX, it saves resources and delay.
Wich Scope OS are U using? 3.1c, 4 or 4.5?
4PC + Scope 5.0 + no more Xite + 2xScope Pro + 6xPulsarII + 2xLunaII + SDK + a lot of devices (Flexor III & Solaris 4.1 etc.) + Plugiator.
quite starnge...Hangee_77 wrote:I haven't used any FX at all and before I routed all the VSTi tracks (only 16 tracks GVI) to the Scope STM mixer channels, my CPU level is pretty low.
By the time I assign those tracks to the mixer channels, the CPU is getting intense too.
I am using Scope 4.0
hc.
havent recognized this....
I use about 1-10 stereo channels into scopes ASIO inputs and the CPU level stays very low, especially if its only audio channels....
Scope is very stable with multichannel and also very low on cpu consumption from my personal experience....
maybe you are having a setup problem?
A64 3500+ with 1GB ram over here....
CPU usage climbs as ASIO latency falls. the lower the latency, the higher the CPU usage will be, since it has to service the ASIO buffers more often. it's an ASIO-specific thing more than a Scope-specific thing.
you don't mention anything specific, what you are sending where, what is loaded in Nuendo (VSTi tracks? any VSTi loaded? any VST effects?), routing, number of tracks, etc., so it's hard to help further.
you don't mention anything specific, what you are sending where, what is loaded in Nuendo (VSTi tracks? any VSTi loaded? any VST effects?), routing, number of tracks, etc., so it's hard to help further.
Read the manual,i remember a command line in the cset.ini that fixes issues of excessive ASIO load.
Sorry but i don't remember correctly now....
www.kwild.com
Sorry but i don't remember correctly now....
www.kwild.com
Thanks for the responses......
ok, let me explain the situation again more detail here.
My PC is P4/3GHz/500FSB/3GB RAM + Luna2 + Pulsar2 + UAD-1 + MOTU2408 MKII (will be removed) + Radeon AGP graphic card.
First I open the Scope v4.0 & route a number of ASIOs Flt channels into the Scope STM 2448 mixer.
Second, I open my sequencing file in Nuendo2, which contains 16 Tascam GVI VSTi tracks, 1 Stylus RMX VSTi track, & 8 stereo audio tracks. (no native or Scope FXs at all)
I notice that the CPU level is still moderate low.
By the time I assign those VSTi tracks to the Scope channels, I realize that the CPU is getting intense. (even my mouse is slow down once in a while during playback)
When I assign back the outputs to Scope 2 channels only in Nuendo, the CPU level went back to normal.
I look at the ULLI setting in Scope, it was set on the third row option (I forgot the exact numbers).
Regarding my Radeon AGP graphic card, should I disable the accelerator?
hc.
ok, let me explain the situation again more detail here.
My PC is P4/3GHz/500FSB/3GB RAM + Luna2 + Pulsar2 + UAD-1 + MOTU2408 MKII (will be removed) + Radeon AGP graphic card.
First I open the Scope v4.0 & route a number of ASIOs Flt channels into the Scope STM 2448 mixer.
Second, I open my sequencing file in Nuendo2, which contains 16 Tascam GVI VSTi tracks, 1 Stylus RMX VSTi track, & 8 stereo audio tracks. (no native or Scope FXs at all)
I notice that the CPU level is still moderate low.
By the time I assign those VSTi tracks to the Scope channels, I realize that the CPU is getting intense. (even my mouse is slow down once in a while during playback)
When I assign back the outputs to Scope 2 channels only in Nuendo, the CPU level went back to normal.
I look at the ULLI setting in Scope, it was set on the third row option (I forgot the exact numbers).
Regarding my Radeon AGP graphic card, should I disable the accelerator?
hc.
Uh, U use your Nuendo/CPU at the top of resources usage (32bit/96Khz)... try to switch to 24bit/44.100 and ASIO1Hangee_77 wrote:It is ASIO2 Flt modules & my Nuendo is 32bit (flt)/96KHz.
hc.
4PC + Scope 5.0 + no more Xite + 2xScope Pro + 6xPulsarII + 2xLunaII + SDK + a lot of devices (Flexor III & Solaris 4.1 etc.) + Plugiator.
ASIO2 seems to have something called Direct Monitoring... since i route all the monitoring directly in scope by hand i found it of no use.
i also couldn't find no reason to use flt I/O modules, since scope is 32bit fixed point internally and 32 floating point translates to 24 bit significand and 8 bit exponent,
so for me ASIO1 24bit modules are perfectly fine.
i also couldn't find no reason to use flt I/O modules, since scope is 32bit fixed point internally and 32 floating point translates to 24 bit significand and 8 bit exponent,
so for me ASIO1 24bit modules are perfectly fine.
ASIO 2 also supports clk output to bnc sync on the daughterboard, although that isn't really necessary for much beyond connection to an ADAT machine imo.
I can't see ASIO1 versus ASIO2 having that level of impact on the performance of his system. I will have to say I haven't done massive 96khz projects either. It seems to me though that routing a high count of 2496 ASIO channels would definately slow your overall system down. This isn't a cpu thing per se, it has more to do with the amount of interrupts being generated to hussle that data over to the PCI bus. An interrupt 'interrupts' whatever the cpu is currently working on and so the high cpu load for your project comes because Nuendo is getting a lower share of system resources moving that audio data across the system bus than it is when it works on it internally it it's own audio engine. A 33mhz PCI bus is FAR more latent than just working cpu <> ram for mixing channels of audio.
Anyway I wasn't 100% on his methedology because he doesn't say how he's enabling/disabling the ASIO channels or whether they're all persistent and he's just connecting them to the STM mixer only, but the above would be my guess.
I can't see ASIO1 versus ASIO2 having that level of impact on the performance of his system. I will have to say I haven't done massive 96khz projects either. It seems to me though that routing a high count of 2496 ASIO channels would definately slow your overall system down. This isn't a cpu thing per se, it has more to do with the amount of interrupts being generated to hussle that data over to the PCI bus. An interrupt 'interrupts' whatever the cpu is currently working on and so the high cpu load for your project comes because Nuendo is getting a lower share of system resources moving that audio data across the system bus than it is when it works on it internally it it's own audio engine. A 33mhz PCI bus is FAR more latent than just working cpu <> ram for mixing channels of audio.
Anyway I wasn't 100% on his methedology because he doesn't say how he's enabling/disabling the ASIO channels or whether they're all persistent and he's just connecting them to the STM mixer only, but the above would be my guess.
Yes, I just read the SFP manual too and it stated that the ASIO2 features some kind of direct monitoring purpose & sample accurate synchronization for external devices……which is I don’t need it.
I am going to switch to ASIO1 module later and see how it works…... and what about the bits? should I choose the 24 bit or 32 bit for dynamic orchestra music?
hc.
I am going to switch to ASIO1 module later and see how it works…... and what about the bits? should I choose the 24 bit or 32 bit for dynamic orchestra music?
hc.